Brahman is all the above?

[Mana]

हरिः ओम्


Namaste cuddledkitty,


What on earth makes you think that wisdom is based in the decimation of a whole; I mean why a 100th of a part, cent's?



praNAma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय
Aum Namaḥ Śivāya

[cuddledkitty]

हरिः ओम्


Namaste cuddledkitty,


What on earth makes you think that wisdom is based in the decimation of a whole; I mean why a 100th of a part, cent's?



praNAma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय
Aum Namaḥ Śivāya

your right perhaps his wisdom is a dollar and 99 cent

[Mana]

हरिः ओम्


Namaste cuddledkitty,


I find weight to be a much better measure of wisdom, the notion of money seems to mislead the senses, as to what is of value.

As enlightened beings, the intellect greatly out weighs physical strength, thus ones wisdom might better be correlated with a physical force such as weight.
Now if we so desire we could describe this measure, in story form, so that others might understand it and promote it. What if that story then tries to denigrate its own origin; by folding back upon its self, effectively biting its own tail?



Quite a conundrum ...



praNAma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय
Aum Namaḥ Śivāya

[reshmita]

It's true some people still think that brahmins are all the above. But, I think in another way as who made this statement that brahmins are all the above and why? Being a Brahmin myself, I believe that it's brahmins made this comment to enjoy a status of a higher class in the society. The divisions of this society in Hinduism have been created by the so called upper level communities. And when Hindu religion was showing its existence for the first time in this world, many had changed their religion from Hinduism due to this classifications. I accept most of the religions have these kinds of divisions, but at the beginning it was creating a lot of problems for the Hindus. Today also I have seen many decide their work and treatment to other depending on their traditional religious values and status of the society. It's not right. But, we are changing rapidly, that's true. Hope, we can make a better world in near future together.

[ahab]

It's true some people still think that brahmins are all the above. But, I think in another way as who made this statement that brahmins are all the above and why? Being a Brahmin myself, I believe that it's brahmins made this comment to enjoy a status of a higher class in the society. The divisions of this society in Hinduism have been created by the so called upper level communities. And when Hindu religion was showing its existence for the first time in this world, many had changed their religion from Hinduism due to this classifications. I accept most of the religions have these kinds of divisions, but at the beginning it was creating a lot of problems for the Hindus. Today also I have seen many decide their work and treatment to other depending on their traditional religious values and status of the society. It's not right. But, we are changing rapidly, that's true. Hope, we can make a better world in near future together.

No one is talking about brahmins here...

[cuddledkitty]

It's true some people still think that brahmins are all the above. But, I think in another way as who made this statement that brahmins are all the above and why? Being a Brahmin myself, I believe that it's brahmins made this comment to enjoy a status of a higher class in the society. The divisions of this society in Hinduism have been created by the so called upper level communities. And when Hindu religion was showing its existence for the first time in this world, many had changed their religion from Hinduism due to this classifications. I accept most of the religions have these kinds of divisions, but at the beginning it was creating a lot of problems for the Hindus. Today also I have seen many decide their work and treatment to other depending on their traditional religious values and status of the society. It's not right. But, we are changing rapidly, that's true. Hope, we can make a better world in near future together.

I am talking about Brahman not Brahmana. Brahman as in the all supreme being or consciousness.

[Seeker]

CuddleKiity,

The names doesn�t mean a thing . Our language and expressions are very limited when we try to define the Supreme One.

However some of the names you have invoked here have traditionally been used to characterize/promote certain behaviors. Allah & Yahweh (Jehovah) are narrated with similar characteristics- as jealous (Exodus 20:4-5) , promote genocide (Samuel 14:48 � this includes women & children,(Qur'an Chapter 47) , Sexual slavery (many verses in Qur'an wrt right hand possession), trickery (Samuel 27:11) � there is a long list.

If your objective is to understand your relation to God , then you may be looking at a confusing compass when you identify all the names as �one and the same�. It doesn�t impact God � but impacts your journey

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

One forth (1/4th) of all that is, considered conceivable or inconceivable ( the full field of everything some like to call kṣetra) is none other then brahman. Now what of the other 3/4th's of brahman? This is beyond our abilities. For one to try and 'package' brahman into a idea that the human can digest does little for undersanding the full-ness (pūrṇatā&#185 of brahman.

Who am I to say what is correct here? I am not that bold. I look to the chāndgoya upaniṣad for guidence , or to the puruṣa sūktam.

To try and ~bundle~ brahman into human comprehension of 'this or that' is like trying to contain space, ākāśa.


praṇām

1. pūrṇatā - fullness; based upon pūrṇa which means whole, fulfilled , finished , accomplished .
From a jyotish POV it is the 15th kalā of the month

[saidevo]

namaste CK and everyone else.

Although Brahman is beyond comprehension by human abilities (except that it should be realized as the Self in us), Hindu sages have mentioned the nature of Brahman as sat-chit-Ananda. This could give us an idea as to the extent of universality of the one God as conceptualized in Abrahamic religions.

• Firstly, Brahman is sat--absolute reality and existence. As the only reality it is omnipresent. How far do the Abrahamic religions posit such single and absolute reality and existence for their one God? In other words, does that one God exist in all beings--sentient and insentient--of the universe, or only as sitting on a golden throne in the heaven?

• Brahman is chit--absolute consciousness and knowledge, which gives rise to its power of omniscience. As Kallol has mentioned in post #5, this consciousness is the link to our essential nature as God. Although we as unenlightened souls might wrongly focus our consciousness on our body, mind and individual soul, all of us irrespective of our religious affiliations have the potential to expand our consciousness to get past the three states of our normal existence (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) and anchor it in the fourth state of turIya. Do the Abrahamic religions conceptualize their one God with such absolute consciousness and equate it with the consciousness of mortal beings, which they can expand in their states of existence?

• Finally, Brahman is Ananda--bliss, which is absolute happiness born out of its powers of omnipresence and omniscience. Although Brahman in manifestation as different gods might be described as having human emotions and limitations (even in Hinduism), they are also described to know their essential nature as bliss and that their humanly actions are only lIlA--sport, performed for the ultimate benefit of the world. We as embodiments of divine consciousness, have the potential to realize this bliss--brahmAnandam, with proper sAdhana--spiritual efforts. Do the Abrahmaic religions have a similar concept for their one God?

Seeker's words in post #16 contain the appropriate caution:
If your objective is to understand your relation to God , then you may be looking at a confusing compass when you identify all the names as ‘one and the same’. It doesn’t impact God – but impacts your journey.

[sdevante]

Along the lines of the previous post -

Do Hindus view the gods and goddesses as having literal physical bodies in some plane of existence or are they metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman?

And if most Hindus view the gods and goddesses as literally existing, then is there any common belief about how the gods and goddesses came to exist? I guess what I'm saying is, in the Christian tradition, God decides to create the heavens, earth, etc. etc. Would it be accurate to say that Brahman stirred into manifestation the gods and goddesses that literally created the worlds?

Sorry if I am not explaining my questions well, I am still learning. Thanks!